Download - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWOpponents also argue that, given the District Clause 209 and the 1\venty-ThirdAmendment, creating a state out of the District of Columbia can only be done byamending the Constitution. 210 They argue that because the District is providedfor in the Constitution, only an amendment to the Constitution can change itsborders. 211 Essentially they posit that the "form and function" of the Districtunder the Constitution does not permit any change. 212 The Virginia precedent isagain instructive. 213 In 1846, to protect slavery and at the request of Virginia,thirty-three square miles were returned by Congress to Virginia. 214 That act wasdone by statute, a simple legislative act of Congress. 215 There is already a considerablerecord from congressional hearings that the non-federal parts of the Districtcan be converted, by simple act of Congress, into a state without amendingthe Constitution. 216 Even if a constitutional amendment is required to create astate,217 statehood remains the preferred option 218 among District residents.Critics worry that the District is not economically viable as a state. 219 Theyalso express concerns about the District's small land area and how it will affectthe potential for population growth. 22o These worries are unfounded. The Districtis economically viable as a state. 221 The District has had a balanced budget209 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17; U.S. CONST. amend. XXIII.210 REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, supra note 193, at 23-25.211 [d. at 72.212 Peter Raven-Hansen, The Constitutionality of D.C. Statehood, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV 160(1991).213 GREEN, supra note 41, at 173-176.214 <strong>Law</strong> of July 9,1846, ch. 35, § 1,9 STAT. 35 (providing for the retrocession of the County ofAlexandria, to the State of Virginia).215 [d.216 See generally H.R. Rep. No. 100-305 (1987). See also Hearing on H.R. 3861 Before theSubcomm. on Fiscal Affairs and Health of the Comm. on the District of Columbia, 98th Congo 36-50(to provide for the admission of the state of New Columbia into the Union, May 15, 1986). See VanNess V. City of Washington, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 62, 70 (1830) (a private grant of land for the creation ofthe District "for use of the United States forever" vests "an absolute unconditional fee-simple in theUnited States.").217 R. HEWITT PATE, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, D.C. STATEHOOD: NOT WITHOtrr A CONSTITtrrlONAL AMENDMENT (1983), https:llwww.policyarchive.org/bitstreamlhandle/l 0207/12663/92076_1.pdf?sequence= 1.218 Constitution for the State of New Columbia Approval Act of 1987: Hearing on Bill 7-154Before the D.C. Council (1987). On November 4, 1980, more than 150,000 D.C. voters voted in anelection to activate the statehood admission process. H.R. REP. No. 100-305, at 14 (1987). That votewas reaffirmed on November 2,1982, when over 110,000 voters participated in a referendum to ratifythe statehood constitution that had been drafted by duly elected delegates to a constitutional convention.[d.219 REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, supra note 193, at 5-6.220 [d. at 3-4.221 H.R. REP. No. 100-305, at 12 (1987). The House Committee found that, "[wJithin the Districtof Columbia, earnings by industry are very diverse and rank higher than many states in severalcategories. In finance, in insurance, real estate activities, the District of Columbia ranks higher than14 states. In hotel and lodging, it ranks higher than 27 states of the Union. In business services, it
TOWARDS EQUAL FOOTING 27in the past eleven years and has been relatively free of mismanagement and corruptionfor at least that long. 222 The Control Board, during its existence, certifiedthat the District is economically stable, and gave the District the freedom to enterinto the markets. 223 As a state, the District would also have the power to tax theincome of non-residents working here. 224 In fact, experts have assessed the economicviability of the District of Columbia over the years and have reached similarconclusions. The findings of these experts are presented later in thisArticle. 225Over the years, members of Congress and scholars have also addressed theconstitutional and legal issues associated with statehood. Senator Edward M.Kennedy (D-MA), who once chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and whointroduced a companion D.C. Statehood Bill in the Senate, stated:I believe that the District. .. meets the generally accepted historic standardsfor the admission of the States to the Union. The three preeminent conditionsare the commitment to the principles of democracy, resources andpopulation sufficient to support statehood, and the will of the people forstatehood. 226Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who also served as Chair of the Senate JudiciaryCommittee, echoed similar sentiments, "[M]y sense is that every considerationshould be given to the question of statehood for the District of Columbia, and myinstincts are in favor of it.,,227 Democratic Representative Peter W. Rodino ofNew Jersey, who chaired the House Committee on the Judiciary for many years,said about D.C. statehood:There is no clause in the Constitution that expressly prohibits Congressfrom erecting a state out of the non-federal part of the District of Columbia.Under Article I, § 8, Clause 17, Congress exercises "exclusive" authorityover the District. If the authority is exclusive, Congress can do with theDistrict what it wishes. If Congress cannot create a state out of the District,ranks higher than 41 states ... There are 1,800 trade associations in the District of Columbia; 18-20million tourists visit the District of Columbia every year. The benefit to the District of Columbia fromtourism is larger than the federal payroll." See also Can the District Afford to be a State infra Part Vexploring financial implications of D.C. Statehood.222 District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2005, H.R. 4850, 108th Congo (2004). The D.C.Appropriations Bill makes appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and otheractivities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 2005, and for other purposes. [d.223 [d.224 H.R. REP. No. 100-305, at 46-47 (1987).225 See infra Part V, at 50.226 Hearing on H. R. 3861 Before the Subcomm.on Fiscal Affairs and Health of the H. Comm. onthe District of Columbia, 100th Congo (1987) (statement of Sen. Edward M.Kennedy).227 See H.R. REP. No. 100-135, at 32.
Page 2 and 3: University of the District of Colum
Page 8 and 9: 2 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF COL
Page 10 and 11: 4 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COL
Page 12 and 13: 6 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF COL
Page 14 and 15: 8 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COL
Page 16 and 17: 10 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 18 and 19: 12 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 22 and 23: 16 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr OF CO
Page 24 and 25: 18 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 30 and 31: 24 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF CO
Page 42 and 43: 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 46 and 47: 40 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 76 and 77: 70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF Co
Page 82 and 83:
76 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 84 and 85:
78 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
82 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
88 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRKi OF COL
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
92 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
100 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF C
Page 108 and 109:
102 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF C
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
BRINGING HOME THE BACON: A TWO·PRO
Page 122 and 123:
BRINGING HOME THE BACON: A TWO-PRON
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
APPEALING TO THE LEGISLATURE: A COM
Page 144 and 145:
POST-CONVICfION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
POST-CONVICTION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 150 and 151:
POST-CONVICflON DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 152 and 153:
POST-CONVICfION DNA & PRESERV A nON
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
POST-CONVICTION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 160 and 161:
MISSING IN ACTION:PRISONERS OF WAR
Page 162 and 163:
MISSING IN ACfION 157provide humane
Page 164 and 165:
MISSING IN ACTION 159quantity, qual
Page 166 and 167:
MISSING IN ACfION 161tion of the ca
Page 168 and 169:
MISSING IN ACI10N 163rently in the
Page 170 and 171:
MISSING IN ACfION 165Rasul v. Bush.
Page 172 and 173:
MISSING IN ACTION 167missions. ,,91
Page 174 and 175:
MISSING IN ACfION 169The Supreme Co
Page 176 and 177:
MISSING IN ACfION 171constitute a c
Page 178 and 179:
MISSING IN ACTION 173Court has open
Page 180 and 181:
MISSING IN ACfION 175sel. But, the
Page 182:
MISSING IN ACTION 177posed, efforts
show all

Download - UDC Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?